Heritage preservation and reconstruction

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

I have heard numerous times how certain heritage buildings are unable to be saved or how it would be all but impossible to rebuild a lost building. Perhaps we could take example from Dresden, Germany?

European cities are a good example. Halifax is not the same as a European city but some reconstruction could happen. I think people have not realized how beautiful it used to be (in say 1860 or 1920), how it was ruined somewhat, and how it could be recovered. My impression is that downtown Halifax was for a while (1950-2000) thought of as a utilitarian business/commercial area (a kind of high density Bayers Lake) and that beauty in public spaces, including the buildings, wasn't thought of much as an amenity in the same way that say a park or a public pool might be an amenity. But it is.

Some places like Quebec City do have this attitude and there was deliberate public investment in making places look good as well as enhancing and preserving history.

The current situation downtown is not bad but it could be better. I believe that if this were just rebalanced a bit more so there were 1-2 good restorations at any given time plus a well thought out reconstruction every decade or two the results would build up a lot over time. Also the same attitude should be applied around the peninsula.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by someone123

European cities are a good example. Halifax is not the same as a European city but some reconstruction could happen. I think people have not realized how beautiful it used to be (in say 1860 or 1920), how it was ruined somewhat, and how it could be recovered. My impression is that downtown Halifax was for a while (1950-2000) thought of as a utilitarian business/commercial area (a kind of high density Bayers Lake) and that beauty in public spaces, including the buildings, wasn't thought of much as an amenity in the same way that say a park or a public pool might be an amenity. But it is.

Some places like Quebec City do have this attitude and there was deliberate public investment in making places look good as well as enhancing and preserving history.

The current situation downtown is not bad but it could be better. I believe that if this were just rebalanced a bit more so there were 1-2 good restorations at any given time plus a well thought out reconstruction every decade or two the results would build up a lot over time. Also the same attitude should be applied around the peninsula.

Quebec City has too many examples of heritage restoration / reconstruction to mention but one of note is reconstruction of the Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury at the Plains of Abraham after a devastating fire that left nothing but a shell of walls. The massive copper roof was reconstructed to match the original. We need some of this tenacity. It seems as though the Heritage Trust is rather quiet these days.

Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury:
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8064...7i16384!8i8192

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

Quebec City has too many examples of heritage restoration / reconstruction to mention but one of note is reconstruction of the Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury at the Plains of Abraham after a devastating fire that left nothing but a shell of walls. The massive copper roof was reconstructed to match the original. We need some of this tenacity. It seems as though the Heritage Trust is rather quiet these days.

Yep. I remember when this fire happened. Hopefully the Halifax armoury restoration will also turn out nicely. The Halifax armoury was simply crumbling for decades (I haven't seen many construction-site-style structures designed to shield pedestrian from masonry except in Halifax).

I saw some pictures from Williamsburg and there was a building from the 1780's that looked great. It burned down in the 1880's and was faithfully recreated in the modern era. I guess nobody told them they could have saved a few bucks by building a tilt-up precast structure.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

I saw some pictures from Williamsburg and there was a building from the 1780's that looked great. It burned down in the 1880's and was faithfully recreated in the modern era. I guess nobody told them they could have saved a few bucks by building a tilt-up precast structure.

I have been to Colonial Williamsburg several times and been in many of the buildings for events. What they are is a bit like our Historic Properties but not exactly the same. They reconstructed or built replicas using old materials and old techniques. The floors bounce and groan, the stairways are narrow, the wind whistles through them, and of course there is nothing at all like insulation or thermal glass. None of them would even come close to meeting building code. In fact when I was there last a few years ago for an event dinner I had the thought that this wasn't safe.

In that case you had a deep-pockets benefactor willing to foot the bill for the whole thing back in a time when you could do such things relatively cheaply. Today there is no way that could happen. Not just for the cost but also for regulatory reasons as noted above. You could, I suppose, build a re-creation that hid modern systems and materials behind an old veneer (which is what Historic Properties is closer to) but there you are getting into significant cost penalties. And I am not fooled whenever I visit HP that I am seeing exactly that - the "Disneyfied" experience. Tourists seem to like it but it makes little sense in other types of venues.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Your memory is actually pretty darn good, save for a few minor quibbles.

The matter of whether the building actually was registered was litigated in the NS Supreme Court. The upshot, and the evidence was pretty clear, is that the Violet Clarke property's address, 1872 Upper Water, was mistakenly added to the register, while the intention had been to register 1869 Upper Water, across the street. It was a simple clerical error. The court found that (1) not only was any purported registration done in error, by virtue of the incorrect address but (2) it was not recorded appropriately at the Registry of Deeds in any event, so would have been invalid even if the correct address had been used. Whether it was registered incorrectly or never registered is a legal point we could slice and dice (I lean to the latter, FWIW), but they amount to the same thing.

The important point is that it was never intended to be registered, despite the disingenuous way that some heritage activists characterized the court's decision. As I noted in my earlier post, the city's Landmarks Commission had specifically excluded it from a list of properties intended to be registered back in the 70s.



I take your point, but I think it would have been a hollow threat. It's doubtful that Armour ever would have been able to get "straight" demolition permits (i.e., without some heritage accommodation, such as maintaining facades). But as you alluded, some media bravado just for effect would not have been out of character for Ben McCrea.

And, just for the record, I'm largely in agreement with your comments. I just tend to be (maybe overly) fastidious about facts, even when they're not necessarily on my side (just ask my long-suffering family...)

Thanks for filling in the blanks. Such are the hazards of getting much of one's information from the media vs the people who know (and are willing to share) 'the rest of the story'...

Regarding the building in question, IMHO, it speaks volumes that the city's Landmarks Commission had excluded it in the 1970s, which (also IMHO) is the root of the problem. The idea that a building that would have been 130 years old in the seventies would be considered not worth saving is perhaps not so unexpected, given the amount of old buildings that were brought down just a decade before - the city was still caught up in the 'urban renewal' high that had spilled over from the party that started in the 1950s. However, by the 1980s it was evident that our downtown had lost something... its soul. I recall in my 1980s university party days that the bars were the only thing going on weeknights and weekends, when the workers were home and the traffic calmed. It was literally dead, other than the inebriated bar patrons, the hookers on Hollis, the homeless asking for spare change, and the few stragglers from the offices who were putting in late nights (though I'm sure some of those quickly switched over to the bar crowd...).

However, it boggles my mind to think that roughly 40 years later it was still considered in the same mindset - just an old building not worthy of saving. I'm sure that Armour would have been just as happy to level the whole goddamn block, if it weren't for the complaining of those pesky heritage zealota - it would have been much cheaper to just put up a glass box without having to carefully empty out the carcasses of the old buildings without knocking down the walls. Who cares if the city inhabitants liked it or not, they weren't paying the bills... right? And, they were getting a new bank branch (actually it was just moving a block or two).

Rambling now, but if that building had survived (like, what if they had built around it and moved their garage entrance elsewhere?) it would be able to see its 200th anniversary on the horizon and that section of Lower Water would probably still be more vibrant than the past decade has seen (Covid notwithstanding).

From wikipedia, there is a lot of Halifax history attached to that building which speaks to the past of the average citizen (not to the statuized leaders of society to whom our visions of history seem to be drawn to):

History
The building, known by the name of its last occupant, a Halifax restaurant, was built in the 1840s. It was a three-story wood frame building, the last wooden building on Halifax's Water Street and was typical of the “Sailortown” buildings which served seafarer's in Nova Scotia's Age of Sail.[1] It stood beside the oldest storefront in Halifax, the 1820 Harrington MacDonald-Briggs Building [2] and faced preserved warehouses and shipping offices of Privateer's Wharf, a National Historic Site. The building served as a sailor's boarding house, liquor store, confectionery, grocery store and restaurant.[3] The building was rented to a successful Halifax restaurant but Armour group argued that it was uneconomical because the upper floors were not suited for profitable modern office space.[4] The last tenant, the Sweet Basil Bistro, reluctantly left the building after 19 years on the site due to the redevelopment.[5]

I hate typing shit like this because it opens the door for the folks who really don't care/understand/appreciate/whatever about history, legacies, stories of the past and liking them to our present, etc... to label my post as dramatic, or looney, or impractical, or whatever. However, regardless of what anybody may think of my opinions, I stand by my contention that all this makes the downtown, and the city in general, less interesting. It's why some folks complain that Halifax seems to still have a small town feel - because we can't see past our frugalness and our innate sense of practicality. Like, "but there's a bank branch there for the public"... woo fucking hoo. I suppose it's great for those who get a thrill from going to the bank.

Anyhow... how about that Press Block? Looks like a good project...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

Quebec City has too many examples of heritage restoration / reconstruction to mention but one of note is reconstruction of the Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury at the Plains of Abraham after a devastating fire that left nothing but a shell of walls. The massive copper roof was reconstructed to match the original. We need some of this tenacity. It seems as though the Heritage Trust is rather quiet these days.

Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury:
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8064...7i16384!8i8192

Quebec City did it right. While the rest of Canada was ripping down their old buildings in the 1950s, Quebec was finding out how to restore and preserve theirs. So anybody who says it can't be done should spend a week in Vieux Quebec and have a good look around.

Meanwhile, in Halifax, we think that the Citadel is a waste of space, and surely could be put to better use by clearing and developing the site...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Quebec City did it right. While the rest of Canada was ripping down their old buildings in the 1950s, Quebec was finding out how to restore and preserve theirs. So anybody who says it can't be done should spend a week in Vieux Quebec and have a good look around.

I don't disagree about Quebec City but I think there is a bit of a misconception that Halifax went down one road long ago while Quebec went down another. In reality they had their 60's and 70's mishaps and Halifax still has a lot of heritage value plus buildings that could be much better than they are. I think the big difference is incremental improvements and higher standards over the decades in Quebec City.

I will also say that I like the modern construction more in Halifax. But I wish that more heritage buildings were maintained to a higher standard. I don't see heritage and development as being in opposition much.

Cogswell is a huge opportunity to improve the use and appearance of a bunch of heritage buildings or maybe even rebuild some old ones but that doesn't seem to have registered much. In principle it's possible to rebuild the Pentagon building or that Morse's Teas like warehouse that was demolished. The Delta Barrington blank wall could also get a heritage-appropriate do-over. Another modest one I've suggested is rebuilding the Hauser Stores one the waterfront and putting the old clock there. I doubt it would cost that much (probably would not even register in the overall context of $$$ to be spent building condos around Cogswell or on the waterfront) but it would dramatically increase the appeal of the historically significant clock and add a bit more historic feel to part of the area.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I have been to Colonial Williamsburg several times and been in many of the buildings for events. What they are is a bit like our Historic Properties but not exactly the same. They reconstructed or built replicas using old materials and old techniques. The floors bounce and groan, the stairways are narrow, the wind whistles through them, and of course there is nothing at all like insulation or thermal glass. None of them would even come close to meeting building code. In fact when I was there last a few years ago for an event dinner I had the thought that this wasn't safe.

Was it really unsafe, or were you just afraid because the floors were 'live'? I mean, you were in the land of litigation, would an unsafe attraction really be tolerated? How would they get it insured?

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In that case you had a deep-pockets benefactor willing to foot the bill for the whole thing back in a time when you could do such things relatively cheaply. Today there is no way that could happen. Not just for the cost but also for regulatory reasons as noted above. You could, I suppose, build a re-creation that hid modern systems and materials behind an old veneer (which is what Historic Properties is closer to) but there you are getting into significant cost penalties. And I am not fooled whenever I visit HP that I am seeing exactly that - the "Disneyfied" experience. Tourists seem to like it but it makes little sense in other types of venues.

If bringing old buildings up to modern standards for safety, efficiency, and comfort would be considered "Disneyfied", then all buildings today are "Disneyfied", except for the ones that you would deem to be unsafe. You create a bit of a quandary whereby it's not acceptable if it's the same way it was 250 years ago, but if it's improved to be up to today's standards, it's still unacceptable because it's not authentic...

Personally, I think old buildings updated with modern amenities and repurposed for a modern use is the best of both worlds. You can appreciate the architecture, craftsmanship, and history of the original building, but where it may have housed a sailmaker in the pre-steamship days, it could now be used as a restaurant or a business that creates digital animation... or whatever. The built heritage remains, and the vibrancy of the city thrives.

I do agree that reproductions of buildings have been sketchy at best in Halifax, but that doesn't mean they can't be done. They just haven't. However, as others have pointed out, they have elsewhere. Halifax just seems to retain a healthy segment of the population that contends that we can't accomplish anything out of the norm, like the creative part of their brains have gone dormant. It would be nice to see that change in the future.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't disagree about Quebec City but I think there is a bit of a misconception that Halifax went down one road long ago while Quebec went down another. In reality they had their 60's and 70's mishaps and Halifax still has a lot of heritage value plus buildings that could be much better than they are. I think the big difference is incremental improvements and higher standards over the decades in Quebec City.

I will also say that I like the modern construction more in Halifax. But I wish that more heritage buildings were maintained to a higher standard. I don't see heritage and development as being in opposition much.

Cogswell is a huge opportunity to improve the use and appearance of a bunch of heritage buildings or maybe even rebuild some old ones but that doesn't seem to have registered much. In principle it's possible to rebuild the Pentagon building or that Morse's Teas like warehouse that was demolished. The Delta Barrington blank wall could also get a heritage-appropriate do-over. Another modest one I've suggested is rebuilding the Hauser Stores one the waterfront and putting the old clock there. I doubt it would cost that much (probably would not even register in the overall context of $$$ to be spent building condos around Cogswell or on the waterfront) but it would dramatically increase the appeal of the historically significant clock and add a bit more historic feel to part of the area.

I agree, but I was trying to keep it simple (don't want to put forum members to sleep).

In actuality, Old Quebec was protected by the feds in the 1950s, much like the Halifax Citadel. However in the 1960s, the province of Quebec established the heritage district, and a group was formed to allow all three levels of government to work together to protect the district:

Protection and management requirements

The Historic District of Old Québec enjoys strong legal protection and the support of all levels of government concerned. An intergovernmental committee, called the Comité de concertation du patrimoine de Québec, was created to coordinate the activities of the different levels of government.

The area of the Historic District of Old Québec, designated by the provincial authority as the site patrimonial du Vieux-Québec (Old Québec heritage site), is legally protected under the Province of Quebec’s Cultural Property Act, which was adopted in 1963. Its boundaries were established by provincial decree in 1964.

Since its inclusion on the World Heritage List in 1985, a number of buildings in Old Québec have been added to the list of properties protected under the Cultural Property Act, including the Site historique et archéologique de l’Habitation-Samuel-De Champlain, the Ursuline Convent of Québec and the archaeological reference collection of Place Royale.

The City of Québec assumes all management responsibilities under its jurisdiction relating to land use and urban planning (zoning bylaws). Moreover, the Règlement sur la politique de consultation publique (bylaw on the public consultation policy) adopted in 2007 stipulates that the Conseil de quartier Vieux-Québec–Cap-Blanc–Colline-Parlementaire (district council) must be consulted before any amendments are made to urban planning and traffic bylaws. Furthermore, any construction, renovation, restoration and signage interventions in Old Québec must have the prior authorization of the Commission d’urbanisme et de conservation of the City of Québec.

The Quebec government and the City of Québec routinely enter into cultural development agreements making it possible to offer grant programs and major financial contributions to support the restoration of the heritage buildings in Old Québec.

Source

However, it's important to realize that Old Quebec is a very special site for a number of reasons, so the same level of preservation wouldn't be appropriate, or needed, in Halifax. However, somewhere in the middle between what Halifax has done/is doing and Quebec would have perhaps led to a city where more of its heritage properties would still remain today, and the ones that actually do remain would be treated more appropriately.

I know Halifax isn't Old Quebec, but on the other hand Halifax has put almost no effort towards retaining what we did have. Your previous example of Portland Me is a good one. Having spent a couple of weeks there a few years back, it became obvious of how much better they were able to do it than Halifax (mind you, the histories of both cities are vastly different, and it was easier to do in Portland). It just exemplifies that with a little more effort things could have been guided in a better direction.

Yet, with as little as Halifax has done to retain its heritage, there are still many who think that we waste too much time and money on it. Imagine the outcry if the city put money into building those projects in the Cogswell district that you suggest. While I would personally think it's great, many others would be saying that we can't afford it - look at the potholes in the roads, and Halifax is wasting money trying to create a Disneyfied past! (etc.)

Anyhow, back to Press Block. Yeah, it would be neat if they could try to replicate the details of the historic buildings of the area, but I can't see it happening.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, it's important to realize that Old Quebec is a very special site for a number of reasons, so the same level of preservation wouldn't be appropriate, or needed, in Halifax.

I think there is a cultural bias going very far back that history in the Maritimes was not as important as Quebec. I didn't originally think about this so much until I researched the history of some of the parts of Halifax that were unceremoniously destroyed, like the Great Pontack (apparently survived until 1920 or so) and Prince Edward's city house, or the old 1700's house where the library is today. Sadly, I don't think the truly old stuff was objectively less important or impressive in Halifax, I think it was just accorded less value because it was out of sight and out of mind nationally and the locals didn't appreciate their own history much. This has also been exaggerated over the decades as Quebec history has been better preserved. Ironically part of what happened is some of the historic stuff in Halifax, like some of the military stuff, remained relevant for longer and so was modernized.

Maritime historians complain about this fairly frequently, that the value ascribed to history often depends on the present day more than the contemporary value. So we hear a lot about early history in Ontario even back when it was basically an undeveloped pioneer area, while an event in the Maritimes that was 10x larger or impactful might get little attention. I would argue that most Canadians don't even really understand Canadian history in a very basic sense of why and how different areas ended up being English/French or American/British.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think there is a cultural bias going very far back that history in the Maritimes was not as important as Quebec. I didn't originally think about this so much until I researched the history of some of the parts of Halifax that were unceremoniously destroyed, like the Great Pontack (apparently survived until 1920 or so) and Prince Edward's city house, or the old 1700's house where the library is today. Sadly, I don't think the truly old stuff was objectively less important or impressive in Halifax, I think it was just accorded less value because it was out of sight and out of mind nationally and the locals didn't appreciate their own history much. This has also been exaggerated over the decades as Quebec history has been better preserved. Ironically part of what happened is some of the historic stuff in Halifax, like some of the military stuff, remained relevant for longer and so was modernized.

Maritime historians complain about this fairly frequently, that the value ascribed to history often depends on the present day more than the contemporary value. So we hear a lot about early history in Ontario even back when it was basically an undeveloped pioneer area, while an event in the Maritimes that was 10x larger or impactful might get little attention. I would argue that most Canadians don't even really understand Canadian history in a very basic sense of why and how different areas ended up being English/French or American/British.

There is a lot to what you are saying. I was thinking in terms of Old Quebec being mostly laid out like a 17th or 18th century French colony with a plethora of stone buildings from the era, but your points are very true, especially that the locals don't appreciate their own history.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There is a lot to what you are saying. I was thinking in terms of Old Quebec being mostly laid out like a 17th or 18th century French colony with a plethora of stone buildings from the era, but your points are very true, especially that the locals don't appreciate their own history.

There is dramatically less architecture anywhere in Canada from before the period of 1850 or so and even in old Quebec there's a lot of newer stuff mixed in (newer often meaning 1860 or 1910). Often the newer structures in Quebec are very sympathetic and add to instead of detracting from the older ones. I think it's easy to get an exaggerated sense of how much truly old stuff there is, and what its scale is like.

It's not obvious that Quebec City has an 1810's building comparable to say Province House. It might exist, it might not. Digging through the old municipal photos of the Cogswell area some structures there looked like they were from the early 1800's. I wouldn't want to get involved in some kind of competitive debate but I think there are a lot of Halifax buildings that are on par with what you find in the most cherished parts of Quebec even though Halifax has lost its large and coherent historic districts. Most Canadian cities are not really like that. I think the "received wisdom" would be that Halifax is basically insignificant historically compared to Quebec City and never had anything remotely comparable.

I'm torn on stone vs. wood. There are some grand stone buildings that are clearly more impressive, but there are nice wood buildings too, and lots of fairly simple older (pre-1800) stone buildings. I think part of what's going on is wood deteriorates faster and is easier to modify. Halifax is full of quite historic and dumpy wooden buildings that could be great.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Was it really unsafe, or were you just afraid because the floors were 'live'? I mean, you were in the land of litigation, would an unsafe attraction really be tolerated? How would they get it insured?

I have no idea about insurance, obviously. I just know that the one I was having dinner in seemed like a tinderbox should it ever catch fire, and getting out would not be easy for a large crowd.

Personally, I think old buildings updated with modern amenities and repurposed for a modern use is the best of both worlds. You can appreciate the architecture, craftsmanship, and history of the original building, but where it may have housed a sailmaker in the pre-steamship days, it could now be used as a restaurant or a business that creates digital animation... or whatever. The built heritage remains, and the vibrancy of the city thrives.

I do agree that reproductions of buildings have been sketchy at best in Halifax, but that doesn't mean they can't be done. They just haven't. However, as others have pointed out, they have elsewhere. Halifax just seems to retain a healthy segment of the population that contends that we can't accomplish anything out of the norm, like the creative part of their brains have gone dormant. It would be nice to see that change in the future.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would ever do what you suggest. It is like someone building a new McMansion with Victorian design. They aren't fooling anyone, and anyone can see that it is not what it purports to be. You can do that of course if you are willing to pay for it. It is one thing to do it for your own personal gratification if it is your own home. It is quite something else for a commercial developer to build something large in such a manner, unless it somehow moves the needle in terms of leasability or public appeal. I would suggest to you that unless it is something loosely related to the entertainment/tourism business, it would not succeed in that goal. Keep in mind that most new commercial builds are much larger than the old buildings they replace. So at best you get a lobby or ground-floor space that is usually awkwardly incorporated into something else and is completely out of context.

I'm reminded of a story Frank Stanton, President of CBS in the 1960s, told about his involvement in the design and construction of Black Rock, the CBS Building on 6th Avenue and 52nd St in NYC. The exterior was designed by Eero Saarinen and the interiors by Florence Knoll, thus giving a modernist style both inside and out. Late in the process, Chairman William Paley expressed a desire for the office designs to be changed to something more traditional in style as he did not like the modernist esthetic. Stanton, who was a very smart man, arranged for some empty office space in another building to be mocked up in decor using a designer that Paley selected as being more to his tastes. One evening the two of them took a tour of the mock-ups. Afterward, Paley was forced to concede that their traditional designs really didn't work very well in the context of the new building. Stanton ended up getting what he wanted, while Paley's suite of offices and conference/dining rooms was done in a more traditional style as he preferred, but were the only such spaces in the building.

The principle of being an honest design in the context of the esthetic of the times, the buildings around it, and the amount being invested in construction holds true regardless of what you are making. Back in the '80s we saw a lot of less-than-honest design features, from fake plastic woodgrain in cars and on microwave ovens, to faux-leather furniture. We still see it in the building trades today with styrofoam fake cornices and composite fake-stone veneer. I cannot understand why anyone would ever specify such fakery on a new build. Who do they think they are fooling? It is a rare project indeed that can afford real granite blocks, terra-cotta exterior cladding, and carved walnut trim inside. If a developer can make the economics work, then by all means use the best materials you can and incorporate them using good design. But if you cannot afford the genuine article, don't try to fake it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is dramatically less architecture anywhere in Canada from before the period of 1850 or so and even in old Quebec there's a lot of newer stuff mixed in (newer often meaning 1860 or 1910). Often the newer structures in Quebec are very sympathetic and add to instead of detracting from the older ones. I think it's easy to get an exaggerated sense of how much truly old stuff there is, and what its scale is like.

IMHO, what makes Old Quebec special compared to most other cities is the collection and the layout, without focusing on the actual age of the structures. In actuality, one of my favourite buildings there, the Edifice Price, was built in 1929 (and helped spark the debate about preserving the old town). Halifax doesn't really have anything comparable in such a concentrated area, though it does have its own treasures that are more spread out, and survive with little guiding force from the govt.

Originally Posted by someone123

It's not obvious that Quebec City has an 1810's building comparable to say Province House. It might exist, it might not. Digging through the old municipal photos of the Cogswell area some structures there looked like they were from the early 1800's. I wouldn't want to get involved in some kind of competitive debate but I think there are a lot of Halifax buildings that are on par with what you find in the most cherished parts of Quebec even though Halifax has lost its large and coherent historic districts. Most Canadian cities are not really like that. I think the "received wisdom" would be that Halifax is basically insignificant historically compared to Quebec City and never had anything remotely comparable.

A debate is the last thing I would want to be involved in, but I will say Quebec's 1886 Parliament building and surrounding grounds is impressive in itself.

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm torn on stone vs. wood. There are some grand stone buildings that are clearly more impressive, but there are nice wood buildings too, and lots of fairly simple older (pre-1800) stone buildings. I think part of what's going on is wood deteriorates faster and is easier to modify. Halifax is full of quite historic and dumpy wooden buildings that could be great.

I'm about the same in that I appreciate both. I would say that wood should carry more significance in Nova Scotia, with its history of shipbuilding in the pre-steam days, and thus the expertise to craft with wood. A visit to Lunenburg really drives that point home, but I agree that lots of older wooden structures in Halifax have suffered from neglect, mostly because they are valued for their utilitarian value rather than historic value (which is actually a testament as to how well they were built). Yet, often wooden buildings are considered expendable to the folks who don't really think about it, and thus they don't get the respect that they deserve.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would ever do what you suggest.

Yet, others have given examples of where it has worked in other cities.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I'm reminded of a story Frank Stanton, President of CBS in the 1960s, told about his involvement in the design and construction of Black Rock, the CBS Building on 6th Avenue and 52nd St in NYC. The exterior was designed by Eero Saarinen and the interiors by Florence Knoll, thus giving a modernist style both inside and out. Late in the process, Chairman William Paley expressed a desire for the office designs to be changed to something more traditional in style as he did not like the modernist esthetic. Stanton, who was a very smart man, arranged for some empty office space in another building to be mocked up in decor using a designer that Paley selected as being more to his tastes. One evening the two of them took a tour of the mock-ups. Afterward, Paley was forced to concede that their traditional designs really didn't work very well in the context of the new building. Stanton ended up getting what he wanted, while Paley's suite of offices and conference/dining rooms was done in a more traditional style as he preferred, but were the only such spaces in the building.

Others have suggested exteriors built to replicate lost historic buildings but built to code to be safe and functional. I don't see how this equates to traditional office amenities in a modernist building, though obviously Paley's suite was made to work, so...

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The principle of being an honest design in the context of the esthetic of the times, the buildings around it, and the amount being invested in construction holds true regardless of what you are making. Back in the '80s we saw a lot of less-than-honest design features, from fake plastic woodgrain in cars and on microwave ovens, to faux-leather furniture. We still see it in the building trades today with styrofoam fake cornices and composite fake-stone veneer. I cannot understand why anyone would ever specify such fakery on a new build. Who do they think they are fooling? It is a rare project indeed that can afford real granite blocks, terra-cotta exterior cladding, and carved walnut trim inside. If a developer can make the economics work, then by all means use the best materials you can and incorporate them using good design. But if you cannot afford the genuine article, don't try to fake it.

You're describing 'faux heritage', whereas others are describing creating authentic period architecture using quality materials and modern construction methods. It doesn't seem to be an unobtainable goal, even though nobody in Halifax seems to really want to do it.

An example of what could be done would be Queen's Marque, with all its newly-quarried Wallace sandstone, could easily have been styled to look more like the Dominion Public building across the street or the old Customs house that was torn down around 1960. Instead they chose a more modern motif using traditional materials.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You're describing 'faux heritage', whereas others are describing creating authentic period architecture using quality materials and modern construction methods. It doesn't seem to be an unobtainable goal, even though nobody in Halifax seems to really want to do it.

I thought I had just outlined that. You are adding considerable cost to the project, usually with no business case or rationale as to why. Unless it appeals to a particular market niche who are willing to pay for it, it makes no sense either economically or in terms of design.

An example of what could be done would be Queen's Marque, with all its newly-quarried Wallace sandstone, could easily have been styled to look more like the Dominion Public building across the street or the old Customs house that was torn down around 1960. Instead they chose a more modern motif using traditional materials.

Again, that is trying to be the most expensive building in town, though whether or not the market will support it remains to be seen. Aside from a deep-pockets law firm I'm not sure whether it will or not. The hotel is shooting for a market that has not existed here previously. While it is nice that they used real stone on the outside, as I posted earlier the exterior design underwhelms me and has very little "wow" factor in my eyes. I think if they were going to use those kind of materials the exterior design could have been a whole lot better.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I thought I had just outlined that. You are adding considerable cost to the project, usually with no business case or rationale as to why. Unless it appeals to a particular market niche who are willing to pay for it, it makes no sense either economically or in terms of design.

It's the same thing you've been saying from the start, and it's not without merit. It's the reason that I asked my initial question in the Press Block thread, is this a reasonable expectation? In this market, probably not. But the standard "business case" argument is not solid, because "business case" is fluid and depends on the requirements in a particular area.

For example, if the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District had similar rules to Old Montreal or Old Quebec, then part of the business case would include that it had to be built to a certain standard, in this case matching the heritage elements surrounding it. A builder would either decide to budget for the extra-cost elements, or they would opt out. In Quebec's case, builders in the heritage district can also receive some financial help from the levels of government. Not sure about Montreal, but I imagine there are also incentives there. In my most recent visit to Old Montreal in 2018, I was able to see a couple of reconstruction projects whereby the buildings were being newly-constructed, and you could see where the finished elements basically looked like a nicely restored 1800s building. So it can be done, and it is happening.

This brings us back to someone123's thoughts on how NS's history is not valued in the same way as Quebec's or Ontario's, and this is reflected in your thoughts that it isn't worth doing, or that it can't be done. Theoretically, if the NS government promoted this type of heritage reconstruction and worked with the feds to provide funding grants to be disbursed by the municipalities (i.e. for designated heritage districts, existing historic buildings, etc.), then we could see this type of construction in Halifax. If Halifax had a higher standard for heritage elements in its heritage district, then the business case to build in that district would include budgeting for such elements, including the government incentives (which also could include tax breaks, etc.).

Just a thought. I think Halifax has long had the mindset that we can't afford to do anything more than just the basics and therefore anything over and above is 'wasteful'. So we're left thinking that we can't even hope for nice things to happen here. However, whenever I've been in other cities in Canada, I feel/hear the mindset of the sky being the limit, what can we strive to do to make things better. In Halifax, I just hear that it can't be done because it's too expensive... and this is reflected in my negativity whenever discussions like this surface on this forum.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Again, that is trying to be the most expensive building in town, though whether or not the market will support it remains to be seen. Aside from a deep-pockets law firm I'm not sure whether it will or not. The hotel is shooting for a market that has not existed here previously. While it is nice that they used real stone on the outside, as I posted earlier the exterior design underwhelms me and has very little "wow" factor in my eyes. I think if they were going to use those kind of materials the exterior design could have been a whole lot better.

That's a matter of personal tastes in architecture, I think. Many other forumers really like the building. I'm lukewarm on it, but leaning more to the "like" side of things.

Your last statement kind of reinforces what I said in my last post, though. Using those materials, they could have gone the route of adding heritage elements to jibe more closely with the Dominion Public Building across the street, which was also built on a reasonably tight budget given that it was built by the government to create economic stimulation during the depression.

Overall, though, it still blends in pretty well as it is.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

For example, if the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District had similar rules to Old Montreal or Old Quebec, then part of the business case would include that it had to be built to a certain standard, in this case matching the heritage elements surrounding it. A builder would either decide to budget for the extra-cost elements, or they would opt out.

We had those for years in Halifax. The old "must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood" requirements in planning rules. That got us two things: either abominations like the Marriott Residence Inn on Market St, the original Sheraton next to Historic Properties, and Neptune Theater, all bad faux-Victorians; or nothing at all.

In Quebec's case, builders in the heritage district can also receive some financial help from the levels of government. Not sure about Montreal, but I imagine there are also incentives there. In my most recent visit to Old Montreal in 2018, I was able to see a couple of reconstruction projects whereby the buildings were being newly-constructed, and you could see where the finished elements basically looked like a nicely restored 1800s building. So it can be done, and it is happening.

The Province of NS is broke. Handing out scarce tax dollars for this sort of thing in amounts that would actually make a difference would be utterly foolish (so is the Art Gallery, but that is another question). You can never use Quebec as an example since they are hugely funded by the Feds and always have been. NS is not in the same league.

This brings us back to someone123's thoughts on how NS's history is not valued in the same way as Quebec's or Ontario's, and this is reflected in your thoughts that it isn't worth doing, or that it can't be done. Theoretically, if the NS government promoted this type of heritage reconstruction and worked with the feds to provide funding grants to be disbursed by the municipalities (i.e. for designated heritage districts, existing historic buildings, etc.), then we could see this type of construction in Halifax. If Halifax had a higher standard for heritage elements in its heritage district, then the business case to build in that district would include budgeting for such elements, including the government incentives (which also could include tax breaks, etc.).

What makes you think that the public would support using tax money for this when our health care system is in a shambles, we are in the midst of a housing crisis, and HRM is spilling over with new, mostly younger residents, many of whom have zero history with or appreciation of this stuff? My sense is that unlike the rest o NS, HRM is trending younger and younger in terms of population, and when it comes time to spend money on spaces, they want new and modern for the most part. Plus, the Province is not likely to provide any sort of funding to HRM for anything, given that HRM is rolling in dough already and has trouble finding ways to spend it all in ways that are not utterly wasteful. There is a very real hostility between those two levels of govt right now.

I get that you care about these things, but I believe you are in a very small minority. As I have said many times here, these buildings are not exactly Penn Station-quality. If they were, I might have a different view, but preserving an old run-down small wooden 2-storey structure that has been largely neglected for decades because the economics of it are poor is a very low priority in my mind.

[someone123]

I don't think many people care about preserving obscure heritage buildings per se (non-landmarks) but I think a lot of people care about how beautiful the environment they live in is, yet they are not really sure what's wrong about it or how to improve and often the environment is poor because of tragedy of the commons dynamics (as a landlord I will let my building look ugly on the outside because this is cheaper to maintain, and my tenants will derive benefit mostly from the beautiful neighbourhood that my building detracts from).

I believe that the sentiment of a lot of preservationists including the HT is off here too. I even saw this a bit in the Southwest Properties comments about how great it is to revert Stairs House to its Georgian-era appearance, chopping off some of the newer additions. This popped up as well with the Champlain Building as the owner there said that the top 2 floors are newer so could be safely sawed off in a redevelopment without compromising the original structure. Some of those plans are good and some are bad but this isn't getting at the crux of the matter. People are not obsessed with removing attractive Victorian additions on Georgian buildings to attain historical purity.

Many people want to see character preserved, whether it's from 1750 or 1950, and they like rich ornamentation and classical beauty, even though the modern architectural profession and industrial building techniques have moved away from these since World War 2. They like the touristy Citadel type attractions with people in costumes sometimes but this is not the core of character preservation and enhancement in urban settings.

The "compatibility" requirements miss the point too. Give us quality and character, not aping of old styles with inferior materials.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

We had those for years in Halifax. The old "must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood" requirements in planning rules. That got us two things: either abominations like the Marriott Residence Inn on Market St, the original Sheraton next to Historic Properties, and Neptune Theater, all bad faux-Victorians; or nothing at all.

IMHO, part of the problem is that poor requirements remain literally unchanged in Halifax for decades, even after the ill effects that you point out are well known. The failure is the lack of attention, or the apathy, of the people who make the requirements, who continue to see the same thing happen over and over again. There's another sad point of developers who don't take pride enough in their work to allow them to happily churn out the crap you describe, as long as the financial aspects are met, or so it appears... I have no way to know their reasoning. The end result is the same, no matter what their reasoning... poor to mediocre is 'good enough'.

Again, Halifax = we can't do it because it's too hard.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The Province of NS is broke. Handing out scarce tax dollars for this sort of thing in amounts that would actually make a difference would be utterly foolish (so is the Art Gallery, but that is another question). You can never use Quebec as an example since they are hugely funded by the Feds and always have been. NS is not in the same league.

Same ol' same ol'. We are broke. We can't afford it.

But... budgeting? We are twinning highways, we are talking about replacing a major bridge. So everything doesn't stop because we need money for healthcare. Also, it's been said here before that if the feds are willing to offer money towards this, NS couldn't accept the money for heritage buildings and put it towards healthcare, so why would we not want to try for this?

Sure, Quebec is a 'special' province, but has NS even tried to get funding for something like this, or have our NS politicians decided that we have nothing worth spending money on because our history isn't as important as Quebec's?

I think it's the same old thing, when discussion of tax dollar allocation leans towards putting money into something that we don't personally like or care about, then it's wasteful, too expensive and we're broke. BTW, I'm happy that the govt hasn't stopped building infrastructure because our healthcare system is in trouble. I expect the people I vote for to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. There's no reason why they can't allocate resources to things other than the main problem at hand.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What makes you think that the public would support using tax money for this when our health care system is in a shambles, we are in the midst of a housing crisis, and HRM is spilling over with new, mostly younger residents, many of whom have zero history with or appreciation of this stuff? My sense is that unlike the rest o NS, HRM is trending younger and younger in terms of population, and when it comes time to spend money on spaces, they want new and modern for the most part. Plus, the Province is not likely to provide any sort of funding to HRM for anything, given that HRM is rolling in dough already and has trouble finding ways to spend it all in ways that are not utterly wasteful. There is a very real hostility between those two levels of govt right now.

I don't think that spending money on buildings to make them nicer is contrary to solving a housing crisis, but moreover, even if people aren't history buffs they like to have interesting places to live. Many of the young people I've spoken to on the subject really appreciate the older buildings still remaining, and a nice mix of new/old makes a place nicer to most people, even if they don't exactly point out how they like the victorian aspects of a particular house, or how much they appreciate the art deco style of architecture on the DPB. They just know that they like certain elements, regardless of history. Just like detailing on new buildings, you don't have to be an architect to know whether you find it beautiful, ugly, or somewhere in the middle.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I get that you care about these things, but I believe you are in a very small minority. As I have said many times here, these buildings are not exactly Penn Station-quality. If they were, I might have a different view, but preserving an old run-down small wooden 2-storey structure that has been largely neglected for decades because the economics of it are poor is a very low priority in my mind.

It's not personal, not about what I care about or what you care about - it's about improving the lived environment in our cities.

Again, comparing Halifax to New York City is part of the issue. Most cities don't have a Penn Station, but do have unique and interesting buildings, even if their particular history isn't known. I would argue that sprucing up some of those old run-down small wooden 2-storey structures would do more to elevate a neighbourhood than you realize. Personally I can remember how run-down some of the old Halifax neighbourhoods looked in the 1980s, like the Agricola Street area or the north end in general, but once people cared enough to fix them up, those neighbourhoods have totally turned around.

So the idea of tearing down or deferring maintenance on any building that isn't Penn Station level is kind of silly. It sounds like the recipe to turning your city into a slum.